Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that three minutes will now suffice.

[Mr Djanogly]

Let me start by saying that, to my mind, the European Research Group’s amendments are clearly aimed at restricting the Government’s ability to negotiate, if indeed they are compatible with the White Paper at all—a White Paper that I support. Amendment 73 and new clause 36 certainly fall into that category. I think that they have been tabled by those who wish to create such difficulties and red lines that we are forced into a hard Brexit, ostensibly by default but secretly by design. They will not have my support tonight.

I want to address the claims of those who say that we do not want the FCA, or indeed a customs union, because we cannot then strike our own trade deals. I note that the Government maintain that we should be able to separate goods from services, but others caution against that because goods and services are often so intrinsically linked that it is unrealistic. I will wait to see the EU’s position.

However, on the central issue of negotiating our own FTAs, I think that we need to question the benefits that so many seem to be taking for granted. First, we need to appreciate that the Department for International Trade is currently acting like something of a Jekyll and Hyde character—on the one hand the Secretary of State is talking about bravely striding around the world seeking new FTAs with countries such as the US and China, but on the other he is pleading with the EU and about 70 third-party countries to roll over the existing 40 or so FTAs that the EU now has with them. So, with more than one third of the world’s countries, Brexit represents the chance at best to get the same deal as from the EU. From the look of things, we may yet get a worse deal in some cases as those third countries start evaluating the decreased advantage of dealing with 50 million rather than 500 million people.

Secondly, there is little evidence that business sees any advantage in customs differentiation—indeed, quite the opposite. The vast majority see advantages in our customs negotiating position, which emanates from the power of the huge trading bloc that the EU represents, and will wish in any event to stick as closely as possible to whatever trading position the EU takes.

Thirdly, world trade is much more interlinked and complex than most people discuss. For example, some of the existing trade agreements that we want to roll over, such as those with Canada and South Korea, feature most favoured nation clauses. Therefore, if we agree a FTA with the USA that offers better terms than those we agreed with Canada, Canada would need to be offered the same. The advantages of being outside the customs union are thus much reduced in any event, and talk of becoming a colony or vassal state is ridiculous.

Fourthly, we live in a world of trading deals where size matters. Rather than discussing a trade deal with the US, we have become caught up in a trade battle. Again, if we were in a customs union, we would have more cover.

Finally, the process of negotiating new FTAs is a long and arduous business. The average time is seven years; Canada took 15 years. Bargaining is tough and based on potential market clout. That goes back to the possibility of US chlorinated chickens and so forth. We need—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I could always listen at length, but we must move on.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The key difference between Lords amendment 19 and Government amendment (a) is that, in the event of a no deal scenario, the Government amendment simply requires a statement, while the Lords amendment in effect grants Parliament a power to issue negotiating directions. On the face of it, it looks attractive to say that if the Government cannot deliver, the Commons should be able to step in, but on these procedural amendments, I can see the other side of the argument.

Governments negotiate treaties, under the terms of the royal prerogative, and Executives govern, and I am not one who would wish to undermine that concept except in the most extreme circumstances. That is what I have been weighing up in recent days. I also recognise that the proposal in Government amendment (a) concedes the Lords request that Parliament should gain a legal right to a veto on an international agreement. I believe that this would be the first time such a veto had been allowed in law in the UK, and it moves us into line with the European Parliament approvals. It is fair to say that, in the past few days, the Government have gone some way to address the concerns on this issue.

In my considerations, I have been no little influenced by the Prime Minister, who I sincerely believe wants the best deal possible for the UK and who is asking to be able to go to the June EU meeting with the freest possible hand. However, if the Prime Minister gets the deal this country needs, even with the Government concession in their amendment (a), there is still no plan B if Parliament then rejects the deal. That is why I think the new compromise, tabled last night by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), moves towards the balance required in retaining both constitutional integrity and practical requirements. I was therefore very pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that this issue will now be looked at again in the Lords, and the Solicitor General reinforced that in his earlier comments.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Frank Field. You have two minutes.

European Council

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is time to hear from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), whose father is a sound Arsenal fan.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Actually, he always used to take me to Nottingham Forest, but there you are.

In contrast to the disappointment coming consistently from the bureaucracy of Europe, in my right hon. Friend’s discussions with the leadership—the politicians—of Europe and individual member states, is the position more nuanced? Is there hope for optimism?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Huntingdon is a splendid part of the world that deserves to be represented effectively by the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a quarter of a century, but it is a long way from Bury, to which this question exclusively relates. [Interruption.] Order. The question is about Bury, I say to the young fellow. He can come in later—we look forward to hearing from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Effective court administration is a very different matter from retaining inefficient and costly court buildings. The question is whether the closures are going hand in hand with investment, efficiency and the best use of technologies in the surrounding courts—not least in Bury, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I was not psychic; I now realise what the hon. Gentleman was driving at earlier. I am glad that he was persistent. Persistence pays.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I would say to him that I wish to call the Minister at, or close, to 5.50 pm, so he has three or, at most, four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.

Given the Opposition’s comments at various stages of the Bill, I am surprised that only the SNP—in new clause 4—has suggested amendment of the role of certification officer. As a shadow BIS Minister some years ago, I visited the certification officer, and everything I saw there shouted that it was a weak, toothless regulator crying out for reform. I wholly support the Government’s attempts to do so.

As for new clause 4, I do not support the idea that the certification officer should have to have expertise in trade union law, although obviously some members of his staff will need to be experts, as much as others will need general legal or accounting skills. It is also somewhat ironic to hear that specific legal qualifications should be required when we know that the last Labour Government specifically excluded unions from regulation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The requirement in new clause 4 for a certification officer for Scotland may fulfil the SNP’s political mandate, but it would be unhelpful for Scottish and other British businesses which want to see a single regulator dealing with unions equally.

Given the wide political and practical debates involved in the unions’ political funds, it is surprising that it has been left to the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) to initiate a debate on this important issue through amendment 1. To set up a political fund, trade unions must first ballot their members to adopt political objects as a union objective. Trade unions can then support political objects only with money from their political funds. The funds may also be spent on union objectives that are not political. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill includes an opt-in provision.

On a connected issue, will the Minister confirm that I am right in thinking that failing to opt into the levy will not necessarily mean that a union member’s overall contribution will be reduced by the amount of the political contribution? If so, should we not consider doing that? Furthermore, given that statute dictates that companies require an annual vote on political donations, why should not the political levy be voted on annually by trade union members? Perhaps that could be addressed as the Bill makes progress.

[Mr Speaker]

To wind up the debate I call the Minister, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 2B and 196B, the Government motion to insist on its disagreement with Lords amendment 31, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

[Mr Djanogly]

As you have reminded the House, Lords amendment 1B, dealing with the statutory duty for legal aid, impinges on the financial privileges in this House. I should also say that my interests remain as I declared at the last stage of ping-pong on 17 April. I ask the House to disagree to this amendment, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so.

Let me first address Lords amendment 31, which concerns the sensitive and important issue of mesothelioma, in the light of the amendment we have tabled. I should emphasise at the start that the Government take very seriously the plight of mesothelioma victims and do not believe that mesothelioma cases are being brought inappropriately. We should appreciate that the issue in mesothelioma cases is not so much causation as process. In effect, the challenge for the Government, employers and insurers is how we ensure that we have procedures in place that enable sufferers to receive compensation more quickly and without the stress of having to pursue protracted litigation.

Much has been done by recent Governments to improve the position of mesothelioma sufferers when the employer’s insurer can be traced. There is now also a consensus that more needs to be done in respect of sufferers who cannot trace their employer’s insurer. Let me be clear that the Government are committed to action on that point. We are working closely with insurers and other stakeholders on this pressing issue with a view to making an announcement before the House rises in July.

I have considered very carefully the points that have been made both in debates in the House last week and the other place last night. We have also held ministerial meetings with campaigners on behalf of mesothelioma victims, including with Lord Alton, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).

The Jackson reforms in part 2 of the Bill are due to come into effect in April next year. We have reviewed that timetable in the context of mesothelioma. On careful reflection about the special position of mesothelioma sufferers, I can now give the House the assurance that we will not commence the relevant provisions in clause 43, on success fees, and clause 45, on after-the-event insurance, in respect of mesothelioma claims in April next year. Rather, we will implement the clauses in respect of those claims at a later date, once we are satisfied on the way forward for those who are unable to trace their employer’s insurer. The amendment commits the Lord Chancellor to carrying out a review of the likely effect of the clauses in relation to mesothelioma proceedings and to publish a report before those clauses are implemented.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Minister is welcome to respond if he wishes, but he is not under any obligation to do so.

[Mr Djanogly]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No, he is not going to respond.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) will know that I came into the proceedings relatively late, and in those circumstances it is not for me to act as umpire on the matter, which would be wrong. However, her observations, sincerely expressed, have been noted, and all I would say is that each and every one of us in this place is responsible for his or her own behaviour and for the impression that we give in the conduct of debate. Let us leave it there for tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. My firm impression is that this matter is currently sub judice and, if I am correct in that surmise, I know that the Minister will exercise his customary lawyerly caution, and it might well be that silence is the best policy.

[Mr Djanogly]

I shall indeed be cautious, Mr Speaker, but I can say that I certainly agree with and understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. This is a regulatory matter, rather than a legislative loophole, but we are in contact with the BSB about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

The service is under pressure because of an increase in appeals, but I am very pleased to say that in five of the past six months more appeals have gone out the door than have come in.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Toby Perkins.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Sadly, James Herbert, a 25-year-old resident of Wells, died in police custody on 10 June 2010. The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated and made six recommendations to the police. The coroner is holding an inquest and will consider a verdict of unlawful killing. Avon and Somerset police will have full access to taxpayer-funded legal representation, but James’s family have been refused such funding on the basis that they should use a local solicitor, should not need much preparation and can use their small savings to fund the case. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Legal Services Commission’s rejection of James’s parents’ application for help?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily, almost inordinately, grateful to the hon. Lady, but before the Minister replies I am wondering whether proceedings are still active. The hon. Gentleman answering from the Treasury Bench might want to take account of that in framing any reply, with the due caution that we have come to expect of Ministers in general and lawyers in particular.

[Mr Djanogly]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not comment on the case itself, but if my hon. Friend wants a general discussion on the legal aid attaching to the case, I will be happy to have it.

Education and Training (Young People with Autism)

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is for Members to take responsibility for their own interests and, as necessary, if they think it appropriate, seek advice from the Registrar, and there is of course an obligation upon Ministers, of which the Minister will be well aware, to comply with the ministerial code, but beyond that no special comment needs to be made on the matter. It is perfectly proper for the Government to decide which Minister should take the proceedings on the Floor of the House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that my financial interests have today once again been regurgitated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and given that they formed the subject of a complaint by his colleague the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I think it is wrong of him, almost to the point of being misleading, not to mention that the Cabinet Secretary found, and informed his hon. Friend of the fact, that I had declared my relevant interests, had not acted in conflict of interest and had acted in the public interest. Will the hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has put the position, including new evidence, very clearly on the record. However, points of order cannot be the occasion for a debate, which would be wrong. The Minister has clarified the position, Members will have heard it—

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

It is good to hear the Minister talking about possible future concessions in this area. To be fair to him, he has always said that the Government’s aim is to protect the most vulnerable. How does he square that with the fact that he has orchestrated the talking out of the main group of amendments today, which affects many of the lowest-income and most vulnerable people in this country? Why are we not getting on to talking about other areas of social welfare law? Is it to protect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), whose law centre is losing all its funding? Is it to protect the Minister’s coalition allies from withdrawing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have got the gist of it.

[Mr Djanogly]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friends and to some of his hon. Friends this evening, in what has been a very informed debate. We have heard some expert contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who started by saying that he had acted in 100 clinical negligence cases. I do not think that there has been any time wasting at all—not nearly as much time wasting as when the hon. Gentleman held a three-hour debate on the first group of amendments on the first day in Committee.

[Mr Djanogly]

I hope those many people will be as unimpressed as I am by what the hon. Gentleman just said.

Let me address the interaction of legal aid and the Jackson proposals, which was mentioned by three or four hon. Members. In addition to reforming legal aid, the Government are introducing fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. During the consultation on his recommendations, concerns were raised about the funding of expert reports in clinical negligence cases. Those reports can be expensive and we need to provide a means of funding them to ensure that meritorious claims can be brought by those who cannot readily afford to pay for them up front. That is why, in making changes to the CFA regime, we are making special arrangements for the funding of expert reports in clinical negligence claims.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East suggested that victims of clinical negligence who take their cases on CFAs will lose their damages in legal fees. As recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, we are reforming CFAs because of the high costs introduced by changes that were made by the previous Government in relation to the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance. Lord Justice Jackson recommended that there should be a cap on damages in personal injury cases that can be taken in lawyer success fees—the cap should be 25% of the damages, not including damages for future care and loss. The Government have accepted that recommendation, so that victims of personal injury, including from clinical negligence, will have their damages protected under CFAs.

The Civil Justice Council is looking at some of the technical aspects of implementing the Jackson recommendations. I spoke with it on this issue only this morning, when I also attended a conference on issues such as how the 25% cap will work to protect damages.

The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal would be fairer if the Government were not introducing the Jackson reforms, and asked why we were implementing both at the same time. We are considering all those major changes together and in the round. At the same time as seeking to make savings from the legal aid budget, we are taking forward those priority measures that were recommended by Lord Justice Jackson, to address the disproportionate and unaffordable cost of civil litigation. It is essential that those proposals are considered at the same time. The current CFA regime, with its recoverable costs, causes a significant burden on, for example, the NHS. Withdrawing legal aid for clinical negligence without reforming CFAs could increase that burden significantly.

The hon. Gentleman said that claimants in severe injury cases are more likely to be disabled and frail and so forth, and being unable to bring proceedings—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister is not quite enjoying the studious attention of the House that I feel sure his words warrant.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked how such cases can be excluded from scope. We consider that CFAs are a viable alternative source of funding to legal aid. CFAs are more readily available in clinical negligence cases than in cases for other types of claim that are currently funded under legal aid. We therefore consider that legal aid is not justified in such cases, and that our limited funding will be better targeted at other priority areas.

It was also said that such claims are not just money claims, and that damages ensure quality of life for the claimant for the remainder of their lives, and hon. Members asked how it can therefore be right to exclude them. Legal aid is currently available to those who qualify financially and who have suffered negligent medical treatment to seek damages from any type of public or private medical practitioners. Although those are claims for monetary compensation, we consider that they often raise very serious issues, especially when the damages are required to meet future needs. Some litigants will be vulnerable because of disabilities that result from negligent treatment.

We were then asked how the Government could expect CFAs to make up the shortfall, given that they would not be available in a large number of cases, such as those involving long-term impairment. Our legal aid proposals would ensure that particular cases in which it might be difficult to secure a CFA continue to receive legal aid where the failure to provide such funding was likely to result in a breach of the individual’s rights.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not making a speech or addressing the House; he is reading something into the record.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a point not of order but of frustration.

[Mr Djanogly]

We carefully considered those points in our consultation response, but we are clear that the proposals put forward by respondents do not, overall, represent a realistic alternative to our programme of reform. We can all agree on the need for greater efficiency. That point was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and we already plan to deliver £1 billion of the Ministry’s savings through efficiencies. The Justice for All campaign also asked us to improve alternatives to legal processes instead of cutting legal help. The Government seized the point, which is why we are increasing the funding available for mediation by £10 million. Some 50% of the proposals suggested by the Law Society amounted to new taxation, but legal aid is primarily funded out of general taxation, and the Government are seeking to reduce the amount of public spending overall. The deficit is also shared across government, and suggestions of cost shifting will not address the overall financial position.

As the Lord Chancellor said earlier, we have the most expensive legal aid system in the world, except for Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the Opposition have been quick to criticise but they have offered no viable alternative. They profess to want to cut legal aid without saying what they would do. They propose to spend £65 million more on social welfare. Does the right hon. Member for Tooting mean to say that he would cut criminal legal aid? If so, by how much would he cut it? By the way, we have looked into the proposals of 20 March 2010, and they were on criminal competitive tendering, so where will the right hon. Gentleman get his savings? This is an unsustainable level of expenditure. In some cases the system encourages people to bring issues before courts where other solutions might be better. In others, it enables people to pursue litigation that they would not contemplate were they paying for it from their own pockets.

I firmly believe that the range of cases identified for inclusion within the scope of civil legal aid reflects the desire—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is quite a lot of chuntering in the Chamber. I am sure that the Minister will want to speak up a bit so that everyone can hear him

[Mr Djanogly]

We must make tough choices and target scarce legal aid on those who need it most. I am sorry to tell the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Manchester Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) that legal aid has never been available for all cases and that we simply need to prioritise our spending. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central said that everyone deserves their day in court. That might be so, but mediation can sometimes be more appropriate.

The Bill’s reforms are not limited to public funding but extend to provisions to implement a fundamental reform of privately funded no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. The changes we propose will rebalance the CFA regime.

The right hon. Member for Tooting, incredibly, refused to say whether he supports our attack on the compensation culture. Under current arrangements, claimants can bring cases without any financial risk. Risk-free litigation encourages unnecessary or avoidable claims to be pursued and puts businesses and other defendants under pressure of excessive legal costs. Under our changes, claimants using CFAs will have to think carefully about whether it is necessary to pursue their claim. I confirm to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that CFAs will still be available for group actions against multinational companies.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly mentioned fixed costs and referral fees, which we need to look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) mentioned the disgraceful episode involving referral fees in relation to miners’ compensation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) felt strongly about referral fees and made a number of valid suggestions that are outwith the direct scope of the Bill but do, I agree, need to be looked at.

We are aware of the strong concern that the payment of referral fees in personal injury cases adds to the costs of civil litigation. We are considering the issue and will announce the way forward in due course. I point out, however, that in 1999 claimant costs represented 50% of damages but that by 2010 the figure had risen to 150%. The previous Government lost control of the situation. Under the relevant provisions in the Bill, the legal costs of all defendants facing CFA-funded claims will reduce. That said, we recognise that there are complex and difficult cases, such as clinical negligence cases, which the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury and for Mid Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) raised. Our Jackson and legal aid reforms will address such cases. CFAs are a viable alternative to legal aid for these cases and the Bill will, exceptionally, enable the recovery of after-the-event insurance premiums for expert reports in clinical negligence cases, in recognition of the fact that they are important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the RBL manifesto he will see that we are meeting most of its requests for reform without having a chief coroner. If we were simply leaving the office on the statute book and not implementing any changes, I would agree with that claim. However, regulations about training for coroners, including for service personnel cases, will be possible for the first time under our proposals. We will be implementing powers to transfer cases more easily within England and Wales—and for the first time to Scotland—when required for cases involving the deaths of service personnel abroad. Those are real and significant improvements to the system that will directly improve the experience of service personnel families who come into contact with the coroner system.

[Mr Speaker]

One of the difficulties with these long answers is that Ministers are reading out great screeds that have been written for them. On the whole, it is better to keep that for the long winter evenings.

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair remark that gets us back to the core of what we are debating: introducing fairness into the process.

The rule introduced by new section 46A gives way to any order made by the court under section 2 of the 1982 Act. Subsection (4) of new section 46A defines what is meant by the forfeiture rule for the purposes of the Bill. It does so by adopting the definition of the forfeiture rule in section (1) of the 1982 Act, which provides that the forfeiture rule means the rule of public policy, which in certain circumstances precludes the person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing. For these purposes, references to a person who has unlawfully killed another include a person who has unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death of the other person.

Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 1 make two consequential amendments to the intestacy rules. Subsection (3) amends section 47(1) of the 1925 Act, which is quite a complicated provision defining the statutory trusts for descendants on intestacy, because section 47(1) currently provides that no grandchild or more remote descendant may inherit under the statutory trusts if his or her parent is still alive when the intestate grandparent dies. This is perfectly sensible in the generality of cases, but it would frustrate the intended operation of new section 46A, which, where it applies, treats the offender as having died before the deceased so that the offender’s children—the victim’s grandchildren—can inherit. Clause 1(3) removes this potential inconsistency by making section 47(2) of the 1925 Act subject to new section 46A.

Clause 1(4) also amends section 47 of the 1925 Act by inserting new subsection (4A), which states that subsections (2) and (4) of section 47 of the 1925 Act are subject to new section 46A. The change is necessary because subsections (2) and (4) of section 47 cover some of the same ground as new section 46A. Section 47(2) provides that where no descendant of the intestate attains a vested interest by reaching the age of 18, or marrying or entering a civil partnership under that age, the estate is to be distributed as if the intestate had died without issue. Section 47(4) applies a similar rule to the statutory trust for siblings of the intestate or issue of such siblings, so that only those members of that class who achieve the age of 18, or marry or enter into a civil partnership under that age, will be included.

The new subsection (4A) of section 47 of the 1925 Act, inserted by clause 1(4) of the Bill, ensures that any duplication with section 47(2) and 47(4) is avoided. Clause 1 implements the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 2005 report on the forfeiture rules and the law of succession. The clause does not, however, contain exactly the same provisions as the equivalent clause in the draft Bill that was published with the Law Commission’s report in 2005, and indeed replicated in large part in the draft civil law reform Bill published for pre-legislative scrutiny by the previous Government in December 2009.

The difference is that those earlier draft Bills contained specific provisions intended to ensure that in forfeiture cases the killer was prevented from gaining any benefit from the inheritance that would, under the terms of the draft Bill, pass to his or her children. Those special trust provisions attracted a good deal of criticism from witnesses to the Justice Committee and from people who replied to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on the draft civil law reform Bill, including the Bar Council and the Law Society, which represent the majority of legal practitioners likely to have to advise on that area of the law. The overall view of those two respondents was that legislation already exists to protect an infant beneficiary’s inheritance in forfeiture cases if such protection were needed.

Both organisations referred to section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which provides the court with a discretion to pass over any prior claims to a grant and to appoint someone else if, by reason of any special circumstances, it appears necessary or expedient to do so. The Bar Council also mentioned section 114(2) of the 1981 Act, which provides that, wherever a minority interest arises under a will or on intestacy, a grant should be made to a trust corporation or to two individuals, unless it appears to the court to be expedient that there should be a sole personal representative. The Bar Council concluded:

“On balance we consider the [provisions safeguarding an infant after forfeiture] to be unhelpful, and likely to lead to an increased expense in the administration of estates in circumstances which are bound to be tragic but are otherwise unpredictable.”

We considered those criticisms carefully and discussed them with the Law Commission and chief chancery master Winegarten, who would, with his fellow judges in the chancery division, have to administer the provisions. We concluded that the special trust provisions would be unnecessary, problematic and expensive to operate. The existing law, which already imposes a trust for the benefit of minor children and gives the court power to supervise the administration of estates, gives effective and adequate protection.

Both the Law Commission and chief master Winegarten were content with the omission of the special trust provisions from the Bill, and we welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to remove them from it. Clause 1 will, as he said in his earlier intervention, make the law fairer, and we wish that part of the Bill very well.

I thought it might be helpful for hon. Members to have some idea of how clause 1 will work in practice. We are dealing with forfeiture on intestacy. In this particular situation, John has murdered his father Bob and is disqualified under the forfeiture rule from inheriting his estate. Bob did not leave a will, so his estate will be distributed under the intestacy rules. John is one of three children whom Bob had with his late wife, Janet. In this situation, John would have been entitled to a third share of Bob’s estate, but the operation of the forfeiture rule in succession prevents him from inheriting.

John has two children, Rosie and Ben. Under the current law, Rosie and Ben cannot inherit John’s share of their grandfather’s estate, because although John is disqualified from inheriting under the forfeiture rule, he is alive, and the intestacy rule provides that, for a grandchild to inherit from his or her deceased grandparent, his or her parent must have pre-deceased the intestate. Clearly, in the forfeiture situation the offender is still alive when the killing takes place.

As a consequence of the interaction of the forfeiture rule and law of intestacy, John’s interest will go back into the estate and pass to Bob’s other blood relatives or, if there is none, to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duke of Cornwall as bona vacantia, under the law relating to ownerless goods. Under the proposed new rule, however, John will be deemed to have died immediately before his father, enabling his children, Rosie and Ben, to inherit his share of his father’s estate. A similar outcome will be achieved when an interest on intestacy has been disclaimed or rejected.

So, if I can, Mr Speaker, I shall move on to clause 2, which amends the Wills Act 1837. The amendments make analogous provision to clause 1, which deals with intestacy in the cases where the deceased leaves a will and an inheritance is disclaimed or forfeited by the intended recipient. Clause 2 is necessary because section 33 of the 1837 Act provides that, where a child of a testator dies before the testator, leaving grandchildren who are alive at the death of the testator, the gift to the child takes effect as a gift to the grandchildren. To give effect to the testator’s wishes, which is the paramount principle of the law of wills, clause 2 inserts new section 33A into the 1837 Act. In all those cases, however, if the will indicates that the testator had different intentions, it will prevail.

Having explained in some lesser or more detail clauses 1 and 2, Mr Speaker, I think it appropriate now—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is attending very closely to the development of the Minister’s thesis and is, I think, indebted to him. If, however, he were under the impression that there was an obligation upon him to treat in detail each component clause, I would want to dispel any such misapprehension. He is not obliged to do so, and if he felt inclined to move towards a conclusion to his thesis I do not think that there would be vociferous objection in the House.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am very pleased, Mr Speaker, to hear that the House would have no objections to my moving on. In some ways, you have pre-empted my thoughts on the matter, and to that extent I am delighted to wind up my speech. Just to say, finally, that from the Government’s point of view we wish the Bill very well on its further progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister delivered his answer with admirable force and self-confidence, but I think it suffered from being the wrong answer, as he was, perhaps, not expecting to be responding to this question. If he can provide us with the right answer to the question now, we will be very grateful.

[Mr Djanogly]

I think the appropriate answer in the circumstances, Mr Speaker, is that we will look into this issue and get back to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T9. I was delighted to hear over the weekend that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has managed to find an additional £27 million to pay for CAB debt advisers. Could any additional funding be found by the Ministry of Justice for groups such as the Brighton housing trust in my constituency, which plays an important role in providing housing advice of the kind that, if it is not dealt with at an early stage, ends up costing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we are looking at various early interventions in relation to housing, welfare benefits, special educational needs and, importantly, private family law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

The White Paper suggests retaining legal aid only for cases in which homes are at risk, but all housing cases carry the risk of homelessness if an early intervention is not made. A representative from a legal practice that currently gives advice to 350 people a year in the Scunthorpe area told me yesterday that most clients are referred to it by the citizens advice bureaux and the wider voluntary sector.

Right now, those agencies do not have the capacity to give appropriate support, and given that funding is being withdrawn by the state and local authorities, the system itself is in imminent threat of collapse. Does the Minister agree that if the proposals go ahead without significant additional money being invested in the voluntary sector, necessary early intervention will not take place, leading to higher levels of homelessness at a significantly higher cost—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we got the gist of it.

[Mr Djanogly]

As the hon. Gentleman intimated, the housing budget for legal aid will have savings. However, he failed to mention that it will go down from some £50 million of spending to £38 million of spending; this area of spend is not going to disappear. If an individual or family are subjected to having their home repossessed or if there is any chance of their losing their homes, legal aid will remain available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. Having spent a lot of time discussing this matter over recent weeks with the not-for-profit sector, I can tell him that very little is known about it in that sector. Even the head offices of voluntary organisations may not know what the funding is for their own local organisations. The core funding for legal help, for instance, typically comes not from the Ministry of Justice, but from the local authority. We have to make up for a decade of people overlooking the need to co-ordinate funding, by seeing what the funding streams are and ensuring that they work in the way that they should. That will involve ensuring that there is no duplication. There is currently a lot of duplication in the system.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the replies, but greater economy would facilitate progress.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the Minister appreciate that those who practise welfare law have traditionally not been highly paid, and does he realise that swathes of firms are likely to disappear? Who will stand in that breach, because those who are most in need are the least likely to be helped in those circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with his usual charm. He raised this issue on a point of order yesterday and I was going to write to him today, so I am delighted to have this opportunity to address it on the Floor of the House. I am, of course, sorry for any misunderstanding or inaccuracy regarding county court services in Worksop. That no doubt stems from the fact that the announced closure of Worksop county court and the announced retention of Worksop magistrates court leads to a slightly more complex set of arrangements at the Worksop courthouse than is typical and I am pleased to be able to clarify the matter.

On the closure of Worksop county court, the counter services will cease to be available, but county court hearings will be retained at the Worksop courthouse. However, the administrative work for Worksop county court is already dealt with at Mansfield county court and, as now, court users will continue to be able to contact Mansfield county court by a variety of methods.

[Mr Speaker]

I gently remind Ministers on the Treasury Bench that answers to topical questions are supposed to be brief.

Courts Service Estate

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I would like to tell the Minister about my concerns for the people who live in rural Somerset. That includes my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). The Government intend to close Bridgwater court and Frome court, which, as the Lord Chief Justice has recognised, will leave any number of people unable to reach a court inside one day’s travel by public transport. Will the Minister consider introducing a proper system for booking appointments, so that people can attend court at 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon? In that way, there might be some hope of their reaching the court in which they are intended to appear. Secondly, can he make certain—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we will make do with one question. Just before the Minister replies, may I remind the House that I am trying to help Members, but that Members must be prepared to help each other? That means short questions and short answers.

[Mr Djanogly]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The court was used for only 23% of the available time in 2009-10, and the standard of accommodation falls far short of what is now expected by court users. However, consideration is to be given to those living in the north of the area having their cases heard at a more convenient court in the Avon and Somerset area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Djanogly and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We have some good English models too. Family mediation can be quicker, cheaper and less stressful, and provide better outcomes, than contested court proceedings. We know that informing people about mediation helps them to understand how it can enable them to avoid long-drawn-out cases. I am pleased to report that the issue forms part of the Norgrove review, which we will follow with great interest.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Leslie. He is not here, so I call Mr David Winnick.